The global rise of populist governments has raised justifiable alarm about the threat of majority rule to minority rights and individual liberties. And, indeed, raw majoritarianism—or the “tyranny of the majority”—can pose grave dangers for human rights of all types. Rather than attempting to undermine majority rule, however, democracy advocates and human rights defenders should focus their efforts on reinforcing the concept of “qualified majority rule” (QMR).
This article explores three important expressions of QMR: supermajority requirements, proportional representation elections, and institutional checks and balances. It then considers how principles of QMR were at work in two landmark democratic achievements: the post-apartheid Constitutional Assembly of South Africa in the 1990s and the negotiated peace process in Colombia in the mid-2010s.
Key features of QMR
QMR begins with the key recognition that broad majority rule is inherently superior to rule by minority elites—be they feudal aristocrats, capitalist oligarchs, vanguard communist parties, military juntas, religious cabals, or nationalist demagogues. Indeed, systems of majority rule are a signature accomplishment of human civilization that, when functioning effectively, protect rather than threaten the interests of minority groups and the freedoms of individuals.
Of course, democracy is more than just bare majority rule; it’s a complex system where slim—and possibly short-lived or hostile—majorities shouldn’t always have the final say. To ensure long-term stability and protect fundamental freedoms, majority rule must be limited, or “qualified.”
The element most closely associated with QMR is the requirement that certain votes in a legislative body or a popular referendum must reach a “supermajority” threshold, such as 67% or 75%, rather than merely exceeding 50%. Supermajority requirements are particularly apt for major decisions such as constitutional changes, the ratification of important treaties, or the protection of fundamental freedoms.
Within a broader understanding of QMR, other democratic processes can work together with supermajority provisions. For example, the principle of proportional representation (PR) in elections can encourage broad participation, foster meaningful power-sharing within government bodies, build consensus, and inhibit narrow majority rule by ensuring that an array of groups receive representation.
Likewise, institutional checks and balances can offer additional layers of protection. The most important of these is robust judicial review by independent courts, particularly regarding constitutionally-protected rights. But other democratic features, such as bicameralism and federalism, can also slow or even stop human rights violations by inhibiting bare-majority rule.
QMR and the South African Constitutional Assembly
The South African Constitution of 1996 is often regarded as the global gold standard for the protection of human rights. So, for contemporary skeptics of majority rule, it’s valuable to keep in mind this crowning achievement of the post-Apartheid transition.
The constitution’s keystone accomplishment was that it replaced longstanding white minority rule with rule by a robust multiparty and multiethnic majority based on universal voting rights. Democracy and human rights emerged as centerpieces in a country that had known far too little of both.
In 1993, an interim constitution set up parliamentary elections for the following year based on PR. An array of parties won seats in the new South African National Assembly and Senate, including some with small constituencies. The African National Congress (ANC) predominated, but five other parties were included, reflecting the new ideal of the “Rainbow Nation.”
The Constitutional Assembly was then constituted from among members of parliament whose selection through PR reflected a new level of diversity. The Assembly was tasked with implementing 34 democratic principles, negotiated during the transitional period, that reflected freedom, diversity, and equality.
Decisions of the Constitutional Assembly required a two-thirds majority, which even the powerful ANC could not unilaterally muster. A review by a new Constitutional Court was to ensure that the draft constitution conformed with all 34 democratic principles. The court rejected the initial draft in part because it insufficiently protected devolved powers of provincial and local governments. The Constitutional Assembly drafted revisions, and only after the court approved them did the full new constitution go into effect.
QMR and the Colombian peace process
The peace process in Colombia of the mid-2010s played out in a very different context from the establishment of the South African Constitution, but it bears certain resemblances in the role played by QMR. At issue was the long-running armed conflict between the Colombian state, the insurgent FARC guerrillas, and other actors, including right-wing paramilitaries and smaller left-wing insurgents. Numerous human rights violations and other atrocities on all sides had been documented for decades.
Negotiations between the government and the FARC began to address the grievances of the guerrillas, to provide limited amnesty, and to ensure broader participation in politics in the future.
After four years, a peace agreement was submitted for a vote in a popular referendum subject to a simple majority (i.e., greater than 50% of the vote) requirement. However, this led to a muddled outcome in which the “no” vote prevailed by less than half a percentage point, amid low overall citizen turnout. The settlement was renegotiated between the government and the FARC, and then, rather than have a second referendum, a new process was established that focused on the Congress of Colombia.
This new process incorporated several elements of QMR. Firstly, members of both chambers of Congress had been elected through PR, using different electoral procedures that resulted in each body reflecting different constituencies and interests. Secondly, a two-thirds supermajority vote was required in both chambers. And finally, certification by the Supreme Court was needed. The peace agreement went into effect once all these QMR principles had been met.
The broader role of qualified majority rule
These brief case studies of South Africa and Colombia cover exceptionally critical moments for those countries. However, QMR principles can also be applicable in more ordinary circumstances, including in routine elections, the enactment of domestic law, the adjudication of legal cases, and periods of transition.
It is undeniable that in recent years, harsh populist governments around the world have been tarnishing the reputation of majoritarian democracy. But the best way forward, almost always, is not less majority rule but more balanced, inclusive—and qualified—majority rule.